Blogganza Redux

Update: Gabe's response is up.

- - - - - -

During the summer, Gabe from Bounty Bowl and I did a 10-part back-and-forth on all things Eagles.  The Blogstravaganza ended up being one of the more popular things we've done around here, so with the by week upon us, we're going to roll it out again.

Gabe's been angling to keep this one a little shorter and more on point, so right now I'm thinking we're really just looking at a Blogganza.  But hey, maybe if we all goad him into continual responses, we'll earn the extra "strava."

And if I know anything about you readers, it's that you are excellent at goading people into continual responses. 

Onwards.

- - - - - -

Gabe,

There has been no shortage of story lines for this young Eagles' season, but I think once again our citywide obsession with the polarizing figures of [that guy], [that other guy] and [that guy who signs the checks] means that once again we're wasting time rehashing the same tired arguments when really we should be focused on the biggest development in Igglesland since at least the early part of 2005.

I'm talking, of course, about DeSean Jackson. 

I was flipping through my copy of Pro Football Prospectus again last night because I wanted to take another look at their "well there must be a reason" explanation for why the Cowboys have been so lucky with injuries the last few years.  After reading that, I went back to the projected stats tables at the end to see what the FO guys thought of DeSean Jackson.  Their stats:

28 receptions, 14.1 y/c, 398 yards, 2 touchdowns

If you had asked Eagles fans before the season if they would have taken those numbers, I think most would have said yes.  This obviously wouldn't have been best-case scenario, but given the underperformance of most rookie wide receivers in this offense, it seemed like a good place to start. 

Now, Jackson's actual stats:

29 receptions, 14.9 y/c, 433 yards, 1 touchdown

And really it should be two TDs.  Through six weeks.

Yes, thank you Capt. Obvious for pointing out that Curtis and Brown have both been hurt and that's why he's gotten more opportunities.  That's merely changed the when, not the what.

When he's out there (and really, why is he not always out there), Jackson looks like the best receiver on this offense.  By far.  Of course, he's not actually the best receiver.  Kevin Curtis is clearly better and Reggie Brown probably is too. 

But DeSean Jackson looks like the best receiver because when he's open, he's open.  We've spent three years arguing about separation.  Does that guy get enough separation?  Does McNabb recognize when a guy has enough separation?  How much room do you really need to squeeze a pass in? 

Then Jackson shows up and all of a sudden we're not talking about 10-inch windows, we're looking at 10 feet.

I'm also blown away by the kid's football IQ.  Think about that route LJ Smith (sort of) ran last week into Takeo Spikes.  That was an ugly play all around, but the bottom line is that the one thing you cannot do is allow the linebacker to get between you and the quarterback.  That's pretty much rule #1 on that route.  And yet LJ and Donovan weren't on the same page, the tight end kind of hesitated, wondering if he should sit in the zone, then started up again, then Donovan threw the ball right to TKO, then the stone-handed LB miraculously held onto it (who says McNabb doesn't have good touch on the ball).

Meanwhile, Jackson already has a veteran's sense of spacing in the passing game.  You can't play a regular cover two against the kid because he and McNabb are already locked in on that sideline window.  His deep catches in the middle always seem to come when he's perfectly positioned between three guys playing zone, none of whom is close enough to make a play.

Even that awful route breakoff he ran a few weeks ago came because he was trying to get to the open part of the field, rather than just running at the safety. 

To top it all off, everyone says the guy prepares like a pro, doesn't have an attitude about working hard, and -- oh yeah -- he's quickly becoming one of the league's most dangerous punt returners.

You asked via email if the 2008 Eagles are any different than the 2007 Eagles.  They are. 

Last year's Eagles didn't have DeSean Jackson.

In fact, leaving injuries aside for a moment,after six weeks, I firmly believe that the only thing standing between this Eagles' team and a championship might be bad coaching.

.......................

But wait......

You're the guy who ... I mean ... Reid is ...

Wait, what?

Yep, I said it, bad coaching.  And I mean it.  From this point forward.

Consider the following.  It's incredibly obvious at this point in time that the Eagles' front four is a) definitely stout enough to take on Marion Barber without getting tricky, but b) won't get to Tony Romo without blitzing.  What people forget, though, is that neither of those facts was known before we played the Cowboys.

So yeah, we can criticize Jim Johnson for what ended up being a pretty crappy game plan against Dallas.  He gets paid the big bucks to be a couple steps ahead and this time he wasn't.  But the truth is that he didn't know in September what kind of unit he had, or how well they would play at some spots, or how question marks would remain at others.  So it's all guesswork in the beginning.

After six games, though, the Eagles should have a pretty good sense of exactly what they have this year.  Which means next time we play the Cowboys, things should be a little different. 

Now flip this over to the offensive side of the football.  When you can move the football as well as the Ealges have with their backups, clearly you have the talent to put together a truly special attack.  The Eagles have a top 10 offense by either traditional statistical category, and unlike last year, they're actually better (7th) in terms of scoring than they are (9th) in terms of yardage.  And that's with so many of the big guns missing so much time.  (If Tom Brady or Brett Favre were doing this with these guys, the MVP talk would be deafening.)

Which obviously means the coaching on that side of the ball isn't terrible.

The problem, however, is that the Eagles seem to have a "sprinkle stuff in" offensive philosophy.  They're going to try to beat you with the same plays they've run for years, and only occasionally will they go for the cross-up.  It's a philosophy of execution rather than misdirection. 

This has to change.

Think about how good the Eagles looked on that first drive against Washington (when the defense didn't seem to have any idea what was coming).  Think about how bad they looked the rest of that game (when the defense did).

Basically, the offensive coaches need to treat every game from here on out as The Game.  Leave nothing out of the game plan.  Don't worry about showing stuff you'd rather save for later.  Instead, show so much stuff that opponents don't know what to prepare for.

If we stick with the tried-and-true, we're going to be pretty good, but at some point we'll come up short.  If we, ahem, put the pedal to the metal, then I don't think anyone can stop us.  That's going to require a bit of a personality shift, though.  And it means Reid & Co. really will need to think about putting guys in a better position to make plays.

In fact, that leads to my biggest unresolved question heading into the bye week.  The Eagles seem to have had two really special coaching moments this season.  The first was the defensive game plan against Pittsburgh, where they ran copious amounts of the Joker package and seemed to know exactly how Roethlisberger would respond to pressure from different angles.  The second was the first scripted series against Washington.

How much input did Mark Whipple have in those two cases?

Your turn.

Comments

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

OMG, did you really just say:
"And it means Reid & Co. really will need to think about putting guys in a better position to make plays."

You REALLY need to stop watching AR's press conferences - like Spock from Star Trek, AR is obviously "mind-melding" with you.
Look away, man, look away!

[BrianS]

"I was flipping through my copy of Pro Football Prospectus again last night because I wanted to take another look at their "well there must be a reason" explanation for why the Cowboys have been so lucky with injuries the last few years."

Did you find anything regarding this?

Your point about JJ not knowing what kind of D-line he really had early in the season is well-taken. Over the last several years, the Eagles seem to do better in the second game with their division rivals than the first.

(I think an exception being '06 vs. the Redskins -- the first leg of the consecutive road games in which they got better each week.)

[Derek]

Well that's the thing, right? If "I have to put guys in a better position to make plays" means "I don't really want to answer your question so I'll say this instead," then he needs a new cliche.

If instead it means "and one way to do that is by calling fades in the red zone to our high-jumping 6-3 receiver," then that's what we need here.

As for the Cowboys thing, it read at the time -- and seems even more so now -- like an attempt to graft a systemic explanation onto what was really a question of coincidence. Maybe the Cowboys' training staff is really good at what it does. On the other hand, that's not going to help much if a guy breaks his ankle.

[Derek]

I got this comment via email, but it never posted. As I'm about to respond to it, here it is:

Derek, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on a couple of things. You cite bad coaching as something that is holding this team back, but you're argument describes a flaw in general strategy and overall gameplanning rather than smaller in game decisions. Do you think that different game day decisions (using the same sprinkle in strategy) could have changed the outcome of any of the 3 losses? For example, like the many field goal attempts, or different play selection on 3rd and 1 rather than runs up the middle. And the reason I ask this is because while I generally like Andy Reid & Co., I think that we can make a pretty good argument that in addition to some strange in game decisions, when the gameplan doesn't work, either they do not adjust enough or the adjustments don't work. I'm willing to concede that they may have been less inclined to alternative strategies with the number of injuries we've had. Now I also know that we are talking about professional athletes, and this is their job. But how much of not doing something drastically different on gameday is because the coaches are worried about execution? Is a week of reps for a different offensive gameplan enough? I'm just curious here, my inclination is yes.

-Ajay

[Derek]

I actually don't think bad coaching has held the team back. I should have made this point more explicitly, but what I was trying to say is that the beginning of the season is a feeling-out process, as the coaches learn what their guys can do and what they can't. This is especially true this year as both sides of a number of new starters playing (although things should settle down when the injured offensive players get back).

I also think those kinds of third-and-one decisions you cited are mostly just coin flips. If the coach guesses right a few times, he's a hero. If not, goat. We also have a tendency to forget the times that their calls worked.

What I'm saying now is that the feeling out process is complete. We know what we have on this team. With two weeks of time to prepare for the rest of the season, it's going to be on the offensive coaching staff to use those learnings to set a foundation for success the rest of the year.

My take, then, is that the Eagles have enough talent to move the ball well most of the time against most of their opponents, but they don't have the kind of unstoppable firepower that allows them to just beat you through straight ahead execution.

As for this team's ability to process and run plays that are different, they seemed to do fine at the beginning of that Washington game.

[jeff]

I like being the only team to beat Pitt. I hope they can take a few vs. the rest of our division.

Any part of the St. Louis game go toward "special coaching moments"? After all that was a stomping on a team that did just beat Washington.

Speaking of, I'm putting my money on a Rams-like steamrolling of the Falcons in the Linc in a week and a half. I always remember seeing how awesome Andy's w/l stats were coming off bye's, I'm assuming that still holds true.

And IF Curtis and Brown (and Westy) are back does that mean we're looking at DeSean in the slot? Could he not put up sick numbers there ala Wes Welker last year?

[Derek]

I have a bad feeling we may not see those three together on the field very often.

[Ajay]

Thanks for the response. I actually tried to post that comment twice, and then gave up when it didn't work. Apparently it sent you an email.

[Derek]

Yeah, comments are a bit screwy today. I'm getting the email notifications but they're not all showing up right away.

[Eagles Fan in San Fran]

Derek - Just busting your chops there, for using THE classic AR quote.

BTW: Vikes just released Tapeh - and we need a real FB. Is Childress still on our payroll or what?

[Jeff]

I would rate the WR's this season:
Curtis (based on 2007 with a bad D'Mac)
Jackson
Baskett
Brown
Avant
Lewis

For whatever reason, AR doesn't really love Hank Baskett, yet the guy has good hands, good speed, and that huge body to seal off the defensive back. Baskett is the closest thing the Eagles have to a Tony Gonzalez-type of receiver, or perhaps more appropriately sticking to the WR position, Keyshawn Johnson.

It's evident Brown does not deserve to be starting over either Jackson or Baskett based on production and drops.

What do you think?

[Derek]

I thought about posting on Tapeh yesterday when I saw things were going in that direction. If he's healthy, you have to think he'd be an upgrade. Not sure he's healthy though.

He also fired off a couple of testy little comments when he left. Didn't stop Trotter I guess.

Brown is much more polished than Baskett. I like HB, but if you compare his production this year to Brown's last year, he's still not beating him out. Which isn't to say he doesn't have a role.

[JeffA]

Just realized there's 2 Jeff's on here. So I'm not JeffA

On HB, I'm not sure comparing production is apples to apples since HB has been cut out of the game plan for half the games in 2008.

Based on what I've seen when Jackson and HB start, they both pose match-up problems: Speed and Size.

[JeffA]

errrr, tired end of day, I AM JeffA. could i be any more confusing?